Amandeep Sandhu, Nainital V. DCIT, Nainital

ITA 4266/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 426620114 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-08-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 05-10-2016
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 23-09-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MRS ANUSHA KHURANA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH A, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI A.D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 4266/DEL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 AMANDEEP SANDHU, VS. DCIT, SHERWOOD COLLEGE, NAINITAL. MALLITAL, NAINITAL. AOMPS2957N (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : MRS. ANUSHA KHURANA, SR. DR ORDER PER S.V. MEHROTRA, A.M. THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAI NST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) DATED 06.07.2011 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 . 2. THE CASE WAS LISTED FOR HEARING ON 24/11/2011. BUT NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, FRESH NOTICE WAS ISSUED THROUGH REGISTERED AD POST FIXING THE DATE ON 21/03/2012. HOWEVER, ON THE DATE OF HEARING, THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED TO 17/07/2012 AT TH E REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE. NEITHER ANYONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESEE ON THE DATE FIXED NOR ANY ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION WAS FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN P ROSECUTING THE APPEAL. HENCE, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSE D, FOR NON-PROSECUTION, FINDING SUPPORT FROM THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: 1. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B.N. BHATTACHARGEE AND ANOT HER, REPORTED IN 118 ITR 461 [RELEVANT PAGES 477 & 478] WHEREIN THEIR LO RDSHIPS HAVE HELD THAT: ITA NO. 4266/D/2011 2 THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN MERELY FILING OF THE APPE AL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING IT. 2. IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT; 223 ITR 480 (M.P.) WHILE DISMISSING THE REFERENCE MADE AT THE I NSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT MADE FOLLOWING OBSERVATION IN T HEIR ORDER: IF THE PARTY, AT WHOSE INSTANCE THE REFERENCE IS M ADE, FAILS TO APPEAR AT THE HEARING, OR FAILS IN TAKING STEPS FOR PREPARATION OF THE PAPER BOOKS SO AS TO ENABLE HEARING OF THE REFE RENCE, THE COURT IS NOT BOUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. 3. IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS. MULTI PLAN INDIA (P) LTD.; 38 ITD 320 (DEL), THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE B EFORE THE TRIBUNAL, WHICH WAS FIXED FOR HEARING. BUT ON THE DATE OF HE ARING NOBODY REPRESENTED THE REVENUE/APPELLANT NOR ANY COMMUNICA TION FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS RECEIVED. THERE WAS NO COMMUNICATI ON OR INFORMATION AS TO WHY THE REVENUE CHOSE TO REMAIN ABSENT ON THA T DATE. THE TRIBUNAL ON THE BASIS OF INHERENT POWERS, TREATED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AS UN-ADMITTED IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19 OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED FOR NON- PROSECUTION. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 03.08.2012 SD/- SD/- (A.D. JAIN) (S.V . MEHROTRA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUN TANT MEMBER DATED: 03/08/12 *KAVITA COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, DEPUTY REGISTRAR